Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gettelfinger Motors (the union disaster in Detroit)
The Wall Street Journal ^ | April 30, 2009 | Editorial

Posted on 04/29/2009 9:06:28 PM PDT by St. Louis Conservative

President Obama insisted at his press conference last night that he doesn't want to nationalize the auto industry (or the banks, or the mortgage market, or . . .). But if that's true, why has he proposed a restructuring plan for General Motors that leaves the government with a majority stake in the car maker?

The feds have decided they should own a neat 50% of GM, yet that is not the natural outcome of the $16.2 billion that the Treasury has so far lent to the company. Nor is the 40% ownership of GM that the plan awards to the United Auto Workers a natural result of the company's obligations to the union.

Yet Secretary Timothy Geithner and his auto task force, led by Steven Rattner, have somehow decided that Treasury and UAW chief Ron Gettelfinger will get to own a combined 90% of GM. If there's a reason other than the political symbiosis among the Obama Administration, Michigan Democrats and the auto union, it's hard to discern. From now on let's call it Gettelfinger Motors, or perhaps simply the Obama Motor Company, though in the latter they'd have to change the nameplates.

The biggest losers here are GM's bondholders. According the Treasury-GM debt-for-equity swap announced Monday, GM has $27.2 billion in unsecured bonds owned by the public. These are owned by mutual funds, pension funds, hedge funds and retail investors who bought them directly through their brokers. Under Monday's offer, they would exchange their $27.2 billion in bonds for 10% of the stock of the restructured GM. This could amount to less than five cents on the dollar.

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; News/Current Events; Philosophy; US: Michigan
KEYWORDS: automakers; chrysler; detroit; generalmotors; gettelfinger; news; uaw; unions

1 posted on 04/29/2009 9:06:28 PM PDT by St. Louis Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: St. Louis Conservative

Who on earth would buy a car from a government owned GM? not I...would you?


2 posted on 04/29/2009 9:07:58 PM PDT by Hildy (Searching for God is like a fish searching for water....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: St. Louis Conservative

The fed gov is controlled by Obama and the UAW is just another arm of the DNC. GM and Chrysler doesn’t have a chance. Of course, we taxpayers don’t either.


3 posted on 04/29/2009 9:14:50 PM PDT by umgud (I'm really happy I wasn't aborted)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

No. I would not buy a GUM ( government/union motors) vehicle.


4 posted on 04/29/2009 9:15:32 PM PDT by A message (3 years 8 months 20 days)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: St. Louis Conservative

In other words, We’ll be pumping billions of dollars of taxpayer money into GM for eternity.

No reason or desire to turn a profit or even break even. Taxpayers will put the books back in the black.


5 posted on 04/29/2009 9:15:39 PM PDT by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: St. Louis Conservative

Will GUM become a non-profit?


6 posted on 04/29/2009 9:21:31 PM PDT by razorback-bert (We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: St. Louis Conservative

GM is now Amtrak on steroids.


7 posted on 04/29/2009 9:25:00 PM PDT by SIDENET ("You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: St. Louis Conservative

This is outright theft. Obama, Geithner, and the UAW are quite literally stealing General Motors Corp from its rightful owners in broad daylight.


8 posted on 04/29/2009 9:26:04 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

Not me. The only “American” car I’ll buy now is a Ford (and they were already better than what GM and Chrysler put out).


9 posted on 04/29/2009 9:28:46 PM PDT by cookcounty (Late-term abortion advocate Barack Obama preaching about torture. How stupid can you get?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: St. Louis Conservative

I wonder how long before Dems complain that taxpayer money is buying GM commercials on Rush and other Talk Radio?????

You can tell Rush is having a harder and harder time being a GM cheerleader.


10 posted on 04/29/2009 9:31:48 PM PDT by cookcounty (Late-term abortion advocate Barack Obama preaching about torture. How stupid can you get?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: St. Louis Conservative

Gettlefinger: Just another nicely dressed commie.


11 posted on 04/29/2009 9:43:32 PM PDT by MadMax, the Grinning Reaper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

No. Not even with a gun to my head. Twice now I have made that comment on two threads in two minutes.


12 posted on 04/29/2009 9:52:55 PM PDT by RobinOfKingston (Democrats, the party of evil. Republicans, the party of stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: razorback-bert
Will GUM become a non-profit?

It already is.

Furthermore, I don't see what's been done to make the new company more profitable than the old one. I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop - when it's clear that they still can't make money, UAW and Obama will throw the workers' health and pension plans on the taxpayer, too. You Freepers that swear you'll never again buy a GM or Chrysler product - it doesn't matter whether you buy, you'll pay anyway. And with enough government subsidies, even a company run by incompetents can force Ford into receivership. Then Obama and UAW will own it, too.

BTW, with the announcement of the automakers' new owners, is GM common stock officially worthless now? Silly me, I thought owning stock meant you actually owned a piece of the company...

13 posted on 04/29/2009 9:56:45 PM PDT by ZOOKER ( Exploring the fine line between cynicism and outright depression)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: St. Louis Conservative

The Wall Street Journal has supported open-borders and the end result is Obama. The chickens have come home to roost.

The WSJ is a crap paper now and I will not be renewing it aftre 15 + years.


14 posted on 04/29/2009 10:12:33 PM PDT by Frantzie ("Remember when Bush was President & Americans had jobs?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: St. Louis Conservative

15 posted on 04/29/2009 11:48:50 PM PDT by Iron Munro (Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZOOKER
Will GUM become a non-profit?

It already is.

Sorry, but I'm laughing my butt off reading that exchange... : )

16 posted on 04/30/2009 2:34:03 AM PDT by Caipirabob (Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: St. Louis Conservative; All

The government tried to do the same thing under Clinton with the Smith & Wesson settlement, where it and the gun grabbers cooperated to try to turn S&W and the other gun makers into a cartel that could only sell guns people didn’t want to buy. S&W’s erstwhile customers fought back with a huge boycott. Former customers of Chrysler and GM should do the same. Otherwise Chrysler and GM will become a government owned cartel that’s too big to fail, meaning the government wills set out to regulate all the other auto makers into the same kind of straight jacket, with all of them forced by the government, the UAW, and the Watermelons to make matchbox cars people don’t want to buy.


17 posted on 04/30/2009 5:40:10 AM PDT by libstripper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: St. Louis Conservative

After today, any Freeper who admits to buying an “American-made” auto should be banned for life. Others have been banned for much less.


18 posted on 04/30/2009 5:49:59 AM PDT by Crawdad (If you're in a fair fight, your tactics suck.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson